Brickbats & Bouquets: School override

Thursday

May 3, 2007 at 12:01 AMMay 3, 2007 at 3:09 AM

Maintaining schools is civic duty

Several years ago my husband’s consulting business was failing and we starting using our equity loan to live on. Fortunately for us, we were able to hang in there, things got better and despite a still high equity loan, we are happy to still be in Lexington.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have considered voting “No” on an override because of our own financial situation. In the first place, peeling paint, leaking roofs, medical costs, mortgage payments and clothes for growing children would have driven us out of Lexington far sooner than a few hundred dollars in taxes. I think living in a community is a trust and I consider it my civic duty to maintain the very things that drew me to Lexington in the first place.

I suppose it would be easy to lull myself into voting “No” because I wanted to believe that waste was rampant, but that is a risky road to travel, not for me, but for Lexington and especially for our children. While there may always be ways to save money, and they should be evaluated and implemented when they make sense, it is not reasonable to vote “No” waiting for things to be perfect.

Voting “No” this year will damage the education of our children beyond reasonable repair. I will vote “Yes” this year because the cost is way too high not to.

Irene Dondley
Leonard Road
Close to our tipping point

On June 5, Lexington goes to the polls to vote on two essential questions: a debt exclusion of $27.5 million for construction of a new Department of Public Works building, and a $3.9 million override for the schools. I hope everyone will support both. I’m writing today about the schools.

We all know that approval of these two budgets, taken together, will raise property taxes a few hundred dollars. But counting last year’s defeat of the override for the schools, it has been three years since voters have supported such a request — three years in which all the schools have suffered cuts, parents have had to pay increasing fees for what were once basic services, and curriculum (like elementary school Spanish) has already been eliminated. That apparently large request looks smaller in this context: it will only hold the line against more austerities.

The schools already offer less than they did when my two grown sons went through from 1984-2000, a period during which several overrides were passed. In the present fiscal climate, it’s hard to attend to content — actual thinking and learning — and people — students, teachers, and staff — the way a first-rate school system ought. If we don't support our schools now, we’re unlikely to stop further decline. In other words, we are close to our tipping point.

This dire situation isn’t helped by the tone of public debate. The citizen-volunteers on the School Committee and their expert colleagues in the superintendent’s office are enduring all sorts of charges from a few vocal individuals, as if it were their fault that state support has plummeted. The School Committee is composed of taxpayers like us, except that they have given countless hours to the well-being of our children. They and the superintendent are doing their very best in a difficult time. They are part of a transparent and democratic process, the same one that allows critics to challenge them at every turn. Critics’ proposals for small-time scrimping won’t bring back excellence.

I hope Lexingtonians won’t be swayed by divisive arguments. The only people who will suffer if the override fails are our children.

The schools are the future for all of us. They are well administered by the superintendent and the School Committee. Please don’t let our future slide past the tipping point on June 5.

The School Committee overspent its budget in fiscal year 2006 and assured the public that its operations would be better controlled and this would not happen again.

The School Committee overspent its budget in fiscal year 2007 and again assured the public that its operations would be better controlled and this would not happen again.

This year’s proposed budget is overrun by $1.6 million, and the public is told that this is still not sufficient. How much will the overspending of the budget be this year?

An administrative fiscal auditing system is long overdue. Fiscal problems identified several years ago have still not been fixed, and the School Committee still appears unable to control costs. Many money-saving opportunities — particularly in energy and maintenance — have been identified for many years. These are only now beginning to be addressed, but still not at a sufficiently high priority. Continued inefficiencies lead to continued waste of taxpayer money, and continued overspending.

The School Committee should enthusiastically welcome and embrace the suggestions of those who question its performance in the face of repeated budget overruns, and who point out missed opportunities to save money. The response of the School Committee to questioning and suggestions does not inspire confidence in its leadership.

The School Committee proposes a bundled override this year. This strategy will test the confidence of the voters in the fiscal responsibility of the School Committee. This is a divisive gamble, and our children and schools will ultimately suffer when voters turn down additional uncontrolled funding for our schools.

Among the school positions at stake in the override election are school librarians. Just as a class without a teacher is no longer a class, so a library without a librarian will not function as a library, and will soon cease to have any useful purpose.

Who will teach children library and research skills? Who will pick up those parts of the second grade curriculum that are lessons on research? Who will maintain the audio-visual equipment? Who will serve as a resource for teachers looking for materials to implement a curriculum?

These skills are not available from volunteers, no matter how dedicated. We simply cannot allow our school programs to be dismembered one by one. Keeping teachers and children in a reasonable class size ratio is critical — but so is keeping the support staff that makes the whole system function.

Editor’s note: The following letter was written by a fourth-grade student in Lexington.

I’m writing to support the override in Lexington.

Last year, when I was in third grade, the majority of voters voted “No” for the override. Because of this, I lost one of my favorite subjects, Spanish. I was devastated, and so were many of my fellow classmates. This year, I’ve not had the privilege of learning Spanish.

There will be another override this year in which many jobs will be cut if the majority of voters do not vote “Yes.” These jobs include janitors, aids, and librarians. I really think that these jobs should not be cut. I will provide specific reasons.

First, the janitors keep the school beautifully clean. I cannot begin to imagine what my school, or any other school, would look like without them. The environment would be filthy, and nobody would enjoy it. The janitors play a vital part in the setup of the school and it would be awful to lose them.

Next, the aids are helpful, supportive, and kind. At recess, they keep an eye on all of the children to make sure that they don’t get hurt — physically or mentally. They help the teachers, who can take advantage of the children’s recess time to take bathroom breaks, correct homework or projects, or get together with the other teachers to discuss a certain topic. The aids are friendly, too, and losing them would cause the teachers to have to lose their lunch time to supervise the children.

Lastly, the librarians do so many things for the school. Currently, everybody in my class is studying the Canadian provinces. My librarian allows us to use the library computers since there isn’t enough room in the computer lab. If we lose all the elementary librarians but one, we can’t study in the library. All of the classes will be crowded into the computer lab.

Also, having a librarian for each school is helpful because we can all have weekly library classes. If we only have one librarian, each school will only be able to open their library once a week. There is definitely not enough time for each class to have their own library time, as we have been doing for years and years. The loss of the librarians would be devastating.

These are the reasons that I think citizens of Lexington should support the schools and vote “Yes” in the override.Amy Morrisett, age 10Valleyfield Street

Difference between policy-making and budget-setting

Inflation notwithstanding, Proposition 2 1/2 caps annual increases in local property taxes to 2.5 percent, and gives voters the power to veto an override of that limit. This exercise in direct democracy sets up some dysfunctional dynamics.

Our representatives spend months negotiating, balancing, and compromising to craft a budget. The process is subject to public hearings, input, and examination. Prop 2 1/2 opens the resulting budget to a line-by-line critique by voters, slanting the system, by design, in favor of “no new taxes” — regardless of what the taxes are needed for.

Our annual focus on whether to pass an override leaves our core problems to fester. The state and federal governments, for example, have imposed costly legal requirements on the schools, and then have failed to fund them. The town must nevertheless comply with these laws. So it turns to property taxes, the only resource it has, to do so. Then supporters and detractors of an override battle it out, when they should instead be coming together to fight for money for, or freedom from, unfunded mandates. The same goes for employee health care cost control, energy policies, and more. Prop 2 1/2 leads to myopic activism.

Where does this leave Lexington? With schools, once among the best in the country and the pride of the community, being hacked away to mediocrity and worse. With a public library whose collections are not adequately funded by the town. With parents fighting for resources for their children with special needs. With seniors without a dignified senior center. With Department of Public Works employees toiling for years in hazardous conditions.

To vote “No” this year would do nothing to solve our real problems. Think of Saugus, which has never approved an override and now faces losing its senior center, school athletic programs, and public library, among many other things. “No new taxes” is extremist. Fair taxes and nourishing community services are what make a community healthy and desirable to businesses and residents.

Please vote “Yes” on June 5.
Jeri Zeder
Massachusetts Avenue
Where is town headed?

As we head to Lexington 2020, some considers models for us to become like Cambridge. Are the grotesque whirligigs, balloons, chartreuse-and-neon-orange stickers, American and discount rate flags flying on the inventory of Lexington Toyota parked up and down the entrance to our town a sign of where commercialization of Lexington, for one purpose only, taxes supporting schools, is headed?

The longer one lives in Lexington, the more one might question how much of a multigenerational, true residential community it plans to be. Why must the schools continually demand greater than 2 1/2 percent increases without taking into serious and dedicated account the interests and needs of populations older than 17 who are residents for many decades and committed to aging in place, not just one decade of using the schooling and overheating the demands on it, before abandoning the town for the Cape and Islands?

Committed long-time residents will remember how recently the East Lexington Fire Station was closed, putting at unconscionable physical peril parts of town when we all know how long it takes to navigate the center. Currently the Department of Public Works building, after 40 years of consideration, will finally be replaced. Why was it acceptable that workers there have balanced beams on equipment for decades? Are their lives less valuable than those of children? An adequate Senior Center has been in discussion for at least 20 years. How many generations of retirees must pass away before an attraction is built for a well-rounded multigenerational community?

Over time, my own view has shifted away from reflexive support of any and all school-based budgets, requiring frequent overrides over the percentage increase currently allowed by law. How many of us deal with flat funding or budget cuts instead of 2 1/2 percent increases annually?

What kind of community are we becoming? Questionable sources of funding for the schools have also been installed by avoiding discussion with community. Keno gambling was sneaked into convenience stores this way, to the irritation and disgust of many of us who do not appreciate this way of sneaking things.

Citizens, honk at your selectmen and Town Meeting members (or call them) if you don’t agree with commercial direction away from multigenerational residential desirability.

Norma Floyd
Oxford Street
Funding needs restructuring

At a recent party I attended with my son, a senior at Lexington High School, we met a Lexington public school teacher. After she asked him what grade he was in, she replied, “This is a good time to be leaving the Lexington public schools.”

She gave me the impression of being a smart and committed teacher but I can understand that her motivation has suffered after the new reality we are experiencing in the schools as a result of the last budget cuts. Do you take her response seriously? I do. I am really concerned.

As my youngest son is graduating in a month, I am extremely grateful for the education my children received in Lexington. Not only they will both be attending excellent colleges in the fall, but Lexington motivated them to become lifelong learners and offered them opportunities in sports, drama, music, improv and writing that contributed to their emotional and physical development, all that in an environment of respect and support. I hope all the children in Lexington have access to a similar experience.

There is no doubt that working conditions for teachers are worse this year: Larger classes and workloads, not enough time to cover all the material (science teachers), not enough books and supplies (no toner at the high school). I strongly believe that funding for public education needs to be restructured and trust that the decision makers will do their part to create effective changes soon, but in the meantime I encourage you to vote “Yes” on June 5 to make sure that teachers and students are happy to be in the Lexington public schools next year.

Claudia Lach
Ledgelawn Avenue
Town Meeting member responds to column

Last week, the chairman of our School Committee criticized my proposals to save money (“Honest debate needed on school district issues,” April 26).

“Our elementary classrooms are crowded,” he wrote, “we have dozens that are over the preferred size.” (18 students per classroom in kindergarten, 22 in first and second grade and 24 in third through fifth grade).

If he consults http://lps.lexingtonma.org/LPS08BudgetFinalJan2207.pdf, page 18, he will see that we have 126 elementary classrooms. Of these, 31 are above preferred size, but 62 — five dozen — are below preferred size (the smallest with six students under preferred size). It’s wonderful to have small classes but it costs money.

Next year, the proposed budget adds another four teachers when enrollment increases by only 16 students. The School Committee could have avoided this luxury by better balancing classrooms during the recent redistricting.

This School Committee misses many other targets: Our budget is overrun by $1.6 million this year and the schools’ financial system, lacking a “position control” module, makes it difficult to ensure we hire only for budgeted positions.

The heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems at Harrington (open since March 2005) and the brand-new Fiske do not work properly. If your new car doesn’t work, you get the car company to fix it promptly and at their expense. Why don’t we do this with our new buildings?

I commend the new programs to keep more special-education (SPED) children in our schools, and save on out-of-district tuitions. But the School Committee still has no systematic ongoing detailed audit mechanism to ensure that, while educationally sound, each individual SPED placement is cost-effective.

The School Committee should welcome suggestions to save money, not misunderstand or vilify them. My proposals, like those of other Lexington residents, are practical and reflect serious time spent on research rather than ideology. If school expenses continue to grow at an unsustainable rate, voters will turn down additional funding and our children and schools will ultimately suffer.